29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[lapman]

"A moment" is double talk, intentional obfuscation.

Free fall acceleration for 105 feet in 2.25s is not possible if there is structural resistance.

Shyam Sunder - Technical briefing 8-26-08
The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous.

Misquote much? 2.25 seconds is only a moment in time. Your misquote was about the entire collapse, not the 2.25 seconds. The fact is that for that amount of time, there was not enough support to arrest the collapse. If I drop a SUV on you, do you think it will slow down at all before it hit the ground? IIRC, the west wall completely stops while the rest of the building continues and then topples on top of the pile.

 

[Newtons Bit]

As you say, the input data is not exact but there are enough data points over a long enough period of time to establish free fall acceleration. The slight variation does not mean a change of acceleration.

NIST did not have any doubts about the results. Why do you?

No. There's enough data points that the AVERAGE acceleration over a period of time is 32.196ft^2/sec . Actual acceleration due to gravity at sea level is 32.174 ft^2/sec (according to Wikipedia in any event). This average is actually slightly over g. Furthermore, there are instantaneous periods in that regressed curve provided by NIST that show acceleration quite substantially greater than acceleration.

Please stop conflating average OBSERVED accelerations with actual accelerations. They're not the same thing.

Oh, and NIST included in their graph that the regressed line didn't exactly fit the data. Do you know where that is in the graph?

 

[FineWine]

This is a good analogy. I wonder if he'll get it.

Thank you. You could safely bet your children and everything else you own that he will not get it.

 

[FineWine]

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it. You are engaging in the denier tactic "nitpick and babble"

He does. The error is insignificant. There are enough data points to establish free fall acceleration.

The high school physics teacher knows vastly more than you do, as you know nothing. The real engineers here know more than the high school physics teacher. Why are you wasting everyone's time? It has been established that you are wrong and you can't learn. Enough already.

 

[Christopher7]

No. There's enough data points that the AVERAGE acceleration over a period of time is 32.196ft^2/sec . Actual acceleration due to gravity at sea level is 32.174 ft^2/sec (according to Wikipedia in any event). This average is actually slightly over g.

NIST did not have a problem with that, why do you?

Furthermore, there are instantaneous periods in that regressed curve provided by NIST that show acceleration quite substantially greater than acceleration. Oh, and NIST included in their graph that the regressed line didn't exactly fit the data. Do you know where that is in the graph?

What I know is that NIST and David Chandler disagree with a bunch if nameless ill mannered deniers.
[The red line. The superimposed curved line is meaningless]

They are nearly identical. That is scientific conformation.

 

[GlennB]

They are nearly identical. That is scientific conformation.

This made me laugh. Or maybe cry.
Next time my horse loses by a fraction in the photo-finish I'll cry "nearly identical !! It's scientifically confirmed"

 

[Newtons Bit]

NIST did not have a problem with that, why do you?

What I know is that NIST and David Chandler disagree with a bunch if nameless ill mannered deniers.
[The red line. The superimposed curved line is meaningless]

[qimg]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg[/qimg]

They are nearly identical. That is scientific conformation.

NIST isn't try to make an argument by saying that the acceleration of the fall was EXACTLY g like you are.

NIST also states that R^2 = 0.9906. Do you even know what that means?

 

[Christopher7]

The high school physics teacher knows vastly more than you do, as you know nothing. The real engineers here know more than the high school physics teacher.

Please
This is high school physics and he used an on line program that he has his students use.
The engineers at NIST agree with him and disagree with you-all.

Furthermore, your claims of expertise are meaningless.
The fact that you are claiming to know better than the engineers at NIST proves you are full of it.
Who do you think you are kidding, each other?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Please
This is high school physics and he used an on line program that he has his students use.
The engineers at NIST agree with him and disagree with you-all.

Yes they do and no we don't.

Furthermore, your claims of expertise are meaningless.
The fact that you are claiming to know better than the engineers at NIST proves you are full of it.
Who do you think you are kidding, each other?

So, what should we make of your claims that YOU know better than the engineers at NIST? After all, you have been accusing them of lying.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST isn't try to make an argument by saying that the acceleration of the fall was EXACTLY g like you are.

Strawman. I'm quoting NIST.

NIST also states that R^2 = 0.9906. Do you even know what that means?

No, but I know what this means

"the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, . . . This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

You pretend to be experts saying otherwise. Few outside this forum will take your word over NIST's. You are obviously and constantly in denial of anything that refutes the OCT. Your fanatic support for the OCT and your disdain for anyone questioning the OCT goes beyond denial and stupidity.

 

[tfk]

The 'errors' are insignificant or NIST would have mentioned it. You are engaging in the denier tactic "nitpick and babble"

He does. The error is insignificant. There are enough data points to establish free fall acceleration.

Sure Chris,

Up to four hours ago, in the context of experimental method, you didn't even know what the word "error" means.

Now you show us that you don't know what the word "significant" means, either. (Big hint: It does not mean "large". It does not mean "important".

And you've proven that 4 hours is not enough to learn what an error analysis means.

Wow. And you do this in public ...?



Tom

 

[alienentity]

Strawman. I'm quoting NIST.

No, but I know what this means

"the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, . . . This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

You pretend to be experts saying otherwise. Few outside this forum will take your word over NIST's. You are obviously and constantly in denial of anything that refutes the OCT. Your fanatic support for the OCT and your disdain for anyone questioning the OCT goes beyond denial and stupidity.

There was no freefall for WTC 1 and 2, Therefore no controlled demolition. Thanks for clarifying this.

Or does CD SOMETIMES produce freefall acceleration, and if so, WHEN in the collapse does this happen?
Got any good answers based on historical precedents?

 

[Christopher7]

This made me laugh. Or maybe cry.
Next time my horse loses by a fraction in the photo-finish I'll cry "nearly identical !! It's scientifically confirmed"

And that's your idea of logic.

 

[Christopher7]

There was no freefall for WTC 1 and 2, Therefore no controlled demolition. Thanks for clarifying this.

More JERFer logic.

Or does CD SOMETIMES produce freefall acceleration, and if so, WHEN in the collapse does this happen?
Got any good answers based on historical precedents?

CD's usually fall at near free fall acceleration. The fact that this one fell at free fall acceleration leaves no other alternative.

Shyam Sunder Technical briefing 8 26 08
The analysis show that the difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it and that is not is not all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. You have a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and where everything is not instantaneous.

 

[The Platypus]

Hmmm, who is more likely the lie to me...

The majority of the world's engineers, people that have extensive education and experience, dedicating their life's careers to this profession. Millions of them, just regular people doing their jobs and building stuff.

Or

A ranting little fringe cult, lead around by a handful of leaders that regularly fleece them for money. Running around the internet, brainwashed and so paranoid that everything that ever happens in the world has to do with some evil secret group of NWO/Joos and their evil plots to get us all.

 

[TruthersLie]

C7

I hate to tell you this, but you just walked into a HUGE trap laid by Alien Entity. He will now post his links to CD and how their acceleration is about 50% of freefall.

that is ok, cuz I am really enjoying watching you get completely hammered and not even realize it.

 

[Christopher7]

So, what should we make of your claims that YOU know better than the engineers at NIST? After all, you have been accusing them of lying.

I am not claiming to know more than NIST. I have simply pointed out two mutually exclusive statements in the NIST report. They cannot both be true. i.e. NIST is lying.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"As the interior columns failed. the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces due to the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not failed in this region [columns 59 & 62] because there were no fires observed on the west side on floors 10 through 14 at any time during the day, and the intact floors were able to pull the exterior walls inward."


1-9 Vol.2 pg 612 [pdf 274]

"The middle line of interior columns [Group 7] lost lateral support in the north-south direction over 11 floors in response to the structural damage that was imposed."

 

[Christopher7]

Hmmm, who is more likely the lie to me...

The majority of the world's engineers, people that have extensive education and experience, dedicating their life's careers to this profession. Millions of them, just regular people doing their jobs and building stuff.

That old chestnut.

This absurd assumption gets trotted out when JERFers want to avoid a point that refutes the OCT.

Can you refute, [with evidence, not insults] the statements my last 2 posts?

 

[hokie]

Mr. Chandler did not do the analysis, the on line computer program did the analysis and your contorted analysis is bunk.

This is the same as stating garbage in - garbage out.

 

[The Platypus]

That old chestnut.

This absurd assumption gets trotted out when JERFers want to avoid a point that refutes the OCT.

Can you refute, [with evidence, not insults] the statement my last 2 posts?

Talk about old chestnuts... It's not on me to refute your wild delusions which you haven't proven in the first place.

I'm not interested in your games. I have sat here and watched how people here have explained your misunderstanding to you, repeatedly, you have already been refuted. Yet you just ignore it all continue to beat this horse long after it's dead, playing the same game over and over...